Authors often ask how long the peer review process takes. Peer review duration has attracted much attention in academia in recent years. Existing research focuses primarily on the statistical characteristics of peer review duration, with few studies considering the potential influence of manuscripts’ attractiveness. This study aims to fill this research gap by employing attention economy theory. By analysing the peer review history of articles published in The British Medical Journal and 16 information and library science journals, we find a significant negative relationship between peer review duration and the Altmetric Attention Score. Overall, our study offers a new perspective on peer review behaviour and bridges the divide between peer reviews and altmetrics.
KellyJSadeghiehTAdeliK. Peer review in scientific publications: benefits, critiques, & a survival guide. eJIFCC2014; 25: 227–243.
2.
ZhangGXuSSunYet al. Understanding the peer review endeavor in scientific publishing. J Inform2022; 16: 101264.
3.
RighiSTakacsK. The miracle of peer review and development in science: an agent-based model. Scientometrics2017; 113: 587–607.
4.
BernsteinJ. Free for service: the inadequate incentives for quality peer review. Clin Orthop Relat Res2013; 471: 3093–3097.
5.
TiteLSchroterS. Why do peer reviewers decline to review? A survey. J Epidemiol Commun Health2007; 61: 9–12.
6.
GasparyanAYGerasimovANVoronovAAet al. Rewarding peer reviewers: maintaining the integrity of science communication. J Korean Med Sci2015; 30: 360–364.
7.
WangXXuSPengLet al. Exploring scientists’ working timetable: do scientists often work overtime?J Inform2012; 6: 655–660.
8.
WangXPengLZhangCet al. Exploring scientists’ working timetable: a global survey. J Inform2013; 7: 665–675.
9.
CabanacGHartleyJ. Issues of work-life balance among JASIST authors and editors: work-life balance issues among JASIST authors and editors. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol2013; 64: 2182–2186.
10.
BarnettAMewburnISchroterS. Working 9 to 5, not the way to make an academic living: observational analysis of manuscript and peer review submissions over time. BMJ2019; 367: l6460.
11.
GengYCaoRHanXet al. Scientists are working overtime: when do scientists download scientific papers?Scientometrics2022; 127: 6413–6429.
12.
KovanisMPorcherRRavaudPet al. The global burden of journal peer review in the biomedical literature: strong imbalance in the collective enterprise. PLoS ONE2016; 11: e0166387.
13.
Campos-ArceizAKohLPPrimackRB. Are conservation biologists working too hard?Biol Conserv2013; 166: 186–190.
14.
RamosHMMustafaMPrimackRet al. What do conservation biologists think about their job and working conditions?Biol Conserv2017; 211: 183–188.
15.
WareMMabeM. The STM report: an overview of scientific and scholarly journal publishing fourth edition. Report, The Hague: International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers, 15March2015, https://apo.org.au/node/57525 (accessed 12 January 2021).
16.
Publons. Publons’ global state of peer review. London: Publons, 2018.
17.
MrowinskiMJFronczakAFronczakPet al. Review time in peer review: quantitative analysis and modelling of editorial workflows. Scientometrics2016; 107: 271–286.
18.
HuismanJSmitsJ. Duration and quality of the peer review process: the author’s perspective. Scientometrics2017; 113: 633–650.
19.
DelliKLivasCSpijkervetFKLet al. Measuring the social impact of dental research: an insight into the most influential articles on the Web. Oral Dis2017; 23: 1155–1161.
HassonaYQutachiTDardasLet al. The online attention to oral cancer research: an Altmetric analysis. Oral Dis2019; 25: 1502–1510.
22.
PautassoMSchäferH. Peer review delay and selectivity in ecology journals. Scientometrics2010; 84: 307–315.
23.
BilalliBMunirRFAbellóA. A framework for assessing the peer review duration of journals: case study in computer science. Scientometrics2020; 126: 545–563.
24.
GarcíaJARodriguez-SánchezRFdez-ValdiviaJ. Can a paid model for peer review be sustainable when the author can decide whether to pay or not?Scientometrics2022; 127: 1491–1514.
GarcíaJARodriguez-SánchezRFdez-ValdiviaJ. A formal study of co-opetition in scholarly publishing. J Inform Sci2022; 76: 1116521.
27.
GarcíaJAChamorro-PadialJRodriguez-SanchezRet al. What is the sensitivity and specificity of the peer review process?Account Res Pol Qual Assur2022; 2022: 1–22.
28.
ZoccaliCAmodeoDArgilesAet al. The fate of triaged and rejected manuscripts. Nephrol Dial Transplant2015; 30: 1947–1950.
29.
CasniciNGrimaldoFGilbertNet al. Assessing peer review by gauging the fate of rejected manuscripts: the case of the Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation. Scientometrics2017; 113: 533–546.
30.
DochertyABKleinAA. The fate of manuscripts rejected from Anaesthesia. Anaesthesia2017; 72: 427–430.
31.
SilerKLeeKBeroL. Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping. PNAS2015; 112: 360–365.
ZhuH. Home country bias in academic publishing: a case study of the New England Journal of Medicine. Learn Publ2021; 34: 578–584.
34.
SikdarSMarsiliMGangulyNet al. Influence of reviewer interaction network on long-term citations: a case study of the scientific peer-review system of the Journal of High Energy Physics. In: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM/IEEE joint conference on digital libraries (JCDL), Toronto, ON, Canada, 19–23June2017, pp. 1–10. New York: IEEE.
35.
WolframDWangPAbuzahraF. An exploration of referees’ comments published in open peer review journals: the characteristics of review language and the association between review scrutiny and citations. Res Eval2021; 30: 314–322.
36.
ShidelerGSAraújoRJ. Reviewer interest in a manuscript may predict its future citation potential. Scientometrics2017; 113: 1171–1176.
37.
BeckJCDavenportTH. The attention economy: understanding the new currency of business. Cambridge: Harvard Business School, 2001.
38.
RuiHWhinstonA. Information or attention? An empirical study of user contribution on Twitter. Inf Syst eBus Manag2012; 10: 309–324.
39.
HubermanBA. Social computing and the attention economy. J Stat Phys2013; 151: 329–339.
RoetzelPG. Information overload in the information age: a review of the literature from business administration, business psychology, and related disciplines with a bibliometric approach and framework development. Bus Res2019; 12: 479–522.
42.
GarciaJARodriguez-SánchezRFdez-ValdiviaJ. The optimal amount of information to provide in an academic manuscript. Scientometrics2019; 121: 1685–1705.
43.
SquazzoniFBravoGTakacsK. Does incentive provision increase the quality of peer review? An experimental study. Res Policy2013; 42: 287–294.
44.
BianchiFGrimaldoFBravoGet al. The peer review game: an agent-based model of scientists facing resource constraints and institutional pressures. Scientometrics2018; 116: 1401–1420.
45.
Del FierroPCSabaj MeruaneOVaras EspinozaGet al. Peering into peer review: good quality reviews of research articles require neither writing too much nor taking too long. Transinformação2018; 30: 209–218.
46.
Serra-GarciaMGneezyU. Nonreplicable publications are cited more than replicable ones. Sci Adv2021; 7: eabd1705.
ZhangGWangLXieWet al. ‘This article is interesting, however’: exploring the language use in the peer review comment of articles published in the BMJ. Aslib J Inform Manag2022; 74: 399–416.
49.
GrovesTLoderE. Prepublication histories and open peer review at The BMJ. BMJ2014; 349: g5394.
50.
BrighamTJ. An introduction to altmetrics. Med Ref Serv Quart2014; 33: 438–447.
WeiCAllaisBTornbergHNet al. The utilization of the Altmetric and PlumX scores in evaluating the top 100 trending melanoma articles in social media. J Am Acad Dermatol2021; 85: 1653–1655.
53.
AzarOH. The slowdown in first-response times of economics journals: can it be beneficial?Econ Inq2007; 45: 179–187.
54.
CasniciNGrimaldoFGilbertNet al. Attitudes of referees in a multidisciplinary journal: an empirical analysis. J Assoc Inform Sci Technol2017; 68: 1763–1771.
55.
XuSAnMAnX. Do scientific publications by editorial board members have shorter publication delays and then higher influence?Scientometrics2021; 126: 6697–6713.
56.
ChettyRFriedmanJNLeth-PetersenSet al. Active vs. passive decisions and crowd-out in retirement savings accounts: evidence from Denmark. Q J Econ2014; 129: 1141–1219.
57.
HausteinSCostasRLariviereV. Characterizing social media metrics of scholarly papers: the effect of document properties and collaboration patterns. PLoS ONE2015; 10: e0120495.
58.
OnoderaNYoshikaneF. Factors affecting citation rates of research articles. J Assoc Inform Sci Technol2015; 66: 739–764.
59.
TahamtanIAfsharASAhamdzadehK. Factors affecting number of citations: a comprehensive review of the literature. Scientometrics2016; 107: 1195–1225.
60.
TaşkınZTaşkınADoğanGet al. Factors affecting time to publication in information science. Scientometrics2022; 127: 7499–7515.
61.
GarciaJARodriguez-SánchezRFdez-ValdiviaJ. The author–reviewer game. Scientometrics2020; 124: 2409–2431.
62.
GarciaJARodriguez-SánchezRFdez-ValdiviaJ. Confirmatory bias in peer review. Scientometrics2020; 123: 517–533.
63.
GarcíaJARodriguez-SánchezRMFdez-ValdiviaJ. The cross-subsidy and buy-one-give-one models of compensated peer review: a comparative study for mission-driven journals. J Inform Sci2022; 2022: 1125321.
64.
Nature Human Behaviour. How we evaluate your manuscripts. Nat Hum Behav2019; 3: 1127–1128.
65.
MoizerP. Publishing in accounting journals: a fair game?Account Organ Soc2009; 34: 285–304.
66.
EngersMGansJS. Why referees are not paid (enough). Am Econ Rev1998; 88: 1341–1349.
67.
ZhangGWangYXieWet al. The open access usage advantage: a temporal and spatial analysis. Scientometrics2021; 126: 6187–6199.
68.
LazerDMJPentlandAAdamicLet al. Computational social science. Science2009; 323: 721–723.
69.
LazerDMJPentlandAWattsDJet al. Computational social science: obstacles and opportunities. Science2020; 369: 1060–1062.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
